Who's Your Favorite Columnist?

[skyline_GTR]

Randy David

Ambeth Ocampo

Max Soliven

[staringatdsun]

conrado de quiros and butch dalisay

[erato]

Conrado de Quiros - I don't always agree with him, but his articles always stimulate my mind, make me think more critically, and contain excellent vocabulary

[johngrisham]

I enjoy reading Al Mendoza

[kb824]

winnie monsod & randy david both for inquirer

[ambidextrous00]

im not sure if she still writes but used to read jessica zafra

[orionquest]

cito beltran (unbiased opinions)

teddy locsin (when he was still writing for the broadsheet today)

quinito henson (for sports)

connie veneracion (wonderful insights on parenting)

tulfo brothers (kakampi ng api)

[MikeyArrovo]

xerex xaviera

[deepdiverboy]

Conrado de Quiros - I don't always agree with him, but his articles always stimulate my mind, make me think more critically, and contain excellent vocabulary

 

I'll have to disagree about the vocabulary part. de Quiros uses big words in a very inapt manner. A columnist's job is not about flaunting quadrisyllabic words, it's about getting the point across in as little effort as possible. That's why columnns are usually shorter than a full-length feature report. It'd be good if de Quiros could state his POV convincingly, but even at that basic task he fails. He mangles the English language with shameless pedancy. In layman's terms, he's full of hot air.

 

CDQ = Cheap Dirty Quickie. That's all he is.

[deepdiverboy]

Tulfo Brothers = bayarang kolumnista.

 

I have a friend who once worked for a PR firm that was hired to "destroy" the name of a car company. He wrote an "op-ed" piece about that company, and what do you know? A few days later what he wrote was published as Mon Tulfo's own piece in PDI--as in word for word. Indi man lang in-edit.

 

My cousin has also encountered Mon Tulfo going out through the back door of a popular Quezon Avenue girly bar. Small wonder whenever there's a column hitting clubs fronting as prostitution dens, that club never gets mentioned in Tulfo's column, despite its being very well-known among politicians and big businessmen.

[cocoy0]

Joey De Leon on Philippine Star. Ambeth Ocampo on the Philippine Daily Inquirer. Benjie Felipe on Bulgar.

[mastertorero]

al mendoza

 

mon tulfo

[yoters4u]

condrado de quiros

[Chito]

I'll have to disagree about the vocabulary part. de Quiros uses big words in a very inapt manner. A columnist's job is not about flaunting quadrisyllabic words, it's about getting the point across in as little effort as possible. That's why columnns are usually shorter than a full-length feature report. It'd be good if de Quiros could state his POV convincingly, but even at that basic task he fails. He mangles the English language with shameless pedancy. In layman's terms, he's full of hot air.

 

CDQ = Cheap Dirty Quickie. That's all he is.

 

Funny, I never viewed De Quiros as someone who's more interested in flaunting his vocabulary rather than getting his point across. In fact, I don't find his vocabulary significantly at variance to that of a common person's.

 

De Quiros does state his point convincingly. It's what he's known for. I could not find any living columnist who is his equal in that aspect. So, no, he definitely does not fail as far as getting his point is concerned.

 

Having said that, I must say that as a reader grows older and wiser, he/she might find more and more things to disagree with as far as the substance of De Quiros' writing goes. But in terms of the manner of writing, I've never seen an opinion writer that most closely approximates the forcefulness of the late Teddy Benigno. Actually, one could argue that DeQuiros is better because he uses common language, unlike Benigno who is just beaming with erudition.

 

(Ah, Teddy Benigno, now that's someone more deserving of deepdiverboy's criticism that he has given to DeQuiros.)

 

Most of DeQuiros' detractors confuse substance with manner when criticizing his columns. These two are mutually exclusive. Believe it or not, DeQuiros is stronger in the latter than the former (but by just a small margin.) When a detractor disagrees with the substance of his writing but takes potshots at his method it actualy makes him/her look silly. Seriously.

 

There are times when I seethe with anger when DeQuiros writes something that I disagree with. But rather than bitch about how a lousy writer he is, I'd much rather view it as actual proof of his effectiveness as a writer.

[deepdiverboy]

Comparing de Quiros to Teddy Benigno = comparing street food to gourmet.

 

I like both types of writers: those who use words sparingly and write like how the man on the street talks, and the type like Benigno who write for those who were blessed with higher intellect.

 

That said, de Quiros belongs to neither. If you think I'm criticizing de Quiros merely because of his penchant for using big words, then you have a lot of reading comprehension to catch up on. The point is de Quiros does NOT know how and when to use which words. If you disagree with that, then it's hopeless to argue with you because you obviously do not have enough English aptitude to see the nuances in the language.

 

Outside of writing style, de Quiros also reeks of being an armchair intellectual. His conjectures are so out of touch with reality that few people would even bother responding to his columns. (This came from a friend who works at PDI, who said that de Quiros has one of the least replies from readers)

 

Edited November 6, 2010 by deepdiverboy